Post #172
Subject: The End?
After nine years of safe surfing, I’ve been felled by the “AntivirusXP2008” computer virus. I’ll probably be out weeks/months while trying to fix my computer.
Or maybe John W. McCain will ask not what his country can do for him but what he can do for his country and buy me a new computer – supporting freedom of speech, ya know! :p
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Post #171
Subject: Who stunk it up?
‘Pretty Boy’ John Edwards… who listened to the whispers that he was prettier than his wife and deserved more. I am NOT surprised that he had an affair; I am surprised that it took so long after his appearance on the national stage – assuming, of course, that there are no other skeletons in the closet.
So, disappointed? NO – I’m not disappointed with Edwards. I did not expect any better from him. I am disappointed in Elizabeth, his wife. The strength of their marriage was a selling point of Edward’s campaign. How could she go along with that?
Actually, I think a ‘womanizer’ can be effective in public office. That * sigh * ya just heard was from John W. McCain! But, please, politicians, do not run for office as a ‘family man’ if ya’re not….
Subject: Who stunk it up?
‘Pretty Boy’ John Edwards… who listened to the whispers that he was prettier than his wife and deserved more. I am NOT surprised that he had an affair; I am surprised that it took so long after his appearance on the national stage – assuming, of course, that there are no other skeletons in the closet.
So, disappointed? NO – I’m not disappointed with Edwards. I did not expect any better from him. I am disappointed in Elizabeth, his wife. The strength of their marriage was a selling point of Edward’s campaign. How could she go along with that?
Actually, I think a ‘womanizer’ can be effective in public office. That * sigh * ya just heard was from John W. McCain! But, please, politicians, do not run for office as a ‘family man’ if ya’re not….
Friday, August 08, 2008
Post #170
Subject: John W. McCain and his Social Security Problem
Retire: To withdraw oneself from business, public life, or active service.
I thought you had to be retired in order to collect Social Security. I also thought when you collected Social Security you could only work a certain amount of hours. Isn't the President of the United States a full-time job? :p
Republican Presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports. McCain gets $1,930 a month from a ”broken” Social Security system. “I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."
In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.
McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65 – despite NOT retiring.
Whoops [blush] – McCain IS retired from the military. When McCain released his tax return for 2007, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.
McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that McCain "was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW." Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain’s case, the exemption is 100 percent. If McCain had to pay taxes on the full amount of the pension, it would have increased his tax bill by about $18,000 based on the percentage of his income he paid to the federal government.
McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff termed a "disability pension" from the Navy. If he is 100% disabled then he certainly shouldn't be running for President! :p
McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace." No, not a disgrace. Indeed, that's what family and community is all about - and that's why the Social Security contract cements the bond between young and old. The disgrace is a wealthy freeloader like McCain who obviously doesn’t need it with his snout in the trough. McCain's wife Cindy has a net worth of approximately $100 million.
My Grandma, 87, gets about 1/5 of what McCain does – and that IS her income. Social Security Insurance works well in doing what it was designed to do – providing insurance in case ya mess up your own retirement plans… or lack thereof. Government is NOT in charge of your retirement. Government keeps my Grandma from eating cat food.
Republicans are always complaining about too much government, welfare queens, government hand-outs, and praising self-sufficiency, rugged individualism, ‘pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,’ but they need to walk the talk. Weasels like McCain have been living off big government all their lives and have never held jobs in private industry. Yet, they're the first to condemn any sort of program which is designed to assist the lower wage workers – low-interest college loans, increases in the minimum wage, health insurance, or greater regulations of some corporate behavior – while benefiting themselves
The point is not that McCain isn't entitled to the Social Security money. The point is that he hypocritically derides Social Security as a "disgrace" but fails to set an example to other multi-millionaires that the system would be benefited greatly if those not needing the money would refuse it. If every multi-millionaire stopped taking the money they don't actually need and gave it to the poor or those without health insurance, think what good that would do!
B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.
… from another blog: “When McCain began receiving Social Security retirement benefits at age 65, 4 of his children were also eligible for benefits. Children under age 18 are eligible for benefits on a retired beneficiary's record. Four of his children were 17,15,13 and 10 when he began resceiving Social Security benefits. One child, Bridget, is still under 18 and presumably still receiving benefits (half her dad's benefit rate or $965/month in 2007). With the 2.3% cost of living increase in January, 2008, McCain's current benefit probably exceeds $1974/month. His 2007 high earnings probably increased his benefits to an even higher benefit rate in his computation. His daughter gets 1/2 or $987 plus a month. His wife is also eligible for spouse's benefits for having an underage daughter in her care. His wife probably earns too much to collect that benefit though. However, if all her income is from investments and she has no wages or self employment earnings, she could draw another $987/month.
“Isn't it wonderful that Senator McCain is criticizing a program that his family benefits from to the tune of $36,000 to $48,000 this year? This is after having collected over $200,000 in family benefits in the previous 6 years.
“The pay as you go system which he criticizes has always been the basis of Social Security. Current wage earners pay for current beneficiaries. This system has succeeded in virtually eliminating poverty for senior citizens in the United States. This is the system that has helped enrich McCain and his family. This is the system that has allowed the McCain family to collect far more in benefits than he paid in taxes.
“It doesn't stop there. In his first marriage, Senator McCain's wife became disabled and, assuming she had worked sufficiently under Social Security, drew Social Security disability benefits. Since the McCain's had 3 young children, they would have been eligible for benefits as children under age 18 of a disabled beneficiary. In fact, at the time of her disability, children were eligible for benefits up to age 22 if they were full time students. So McCain family #1 may very well have had an opportunity to have Social Security defray a large portion of his children's college expenses. SSA benefits also lessened the burden on Mr. McCain's obligations to support his children from his 1st marriage after his divorce.
“The level of benefits that the McCains have received from Social Security is astounding. And he wants to dismantle the program that provided his family such substantial benefits?”
Subject: John W. McCain and his Social Security Problem
Retire: To withdraw oneself from business, public life, or active service.
I thought you had to be retired in order to collect Social Security. I also thought when you collected Social Security you could only work a certain amount of hours. Isn't the President of the United States a full-time job? :p
Republican Presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports. McCain gets $1,930 a month from a ”broken” Social Security system. “I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."
In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.
McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65 – despite NOT retiring.
Whoops [blush] – McCain IS retired from the military. When McCain released his tax return for 2007, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.
McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that McCain "was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW." Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain’s case, the exemption is 100 percent. If McCain had to pay taxes on the full amount of the pension, it would have increased his tax bill by about $18,000 based on the percentage of his income he paid to the federal government.
McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff termed a "disability pension" from the Navy. If he is 100% disabled then he certainly shouldn't be running for President! :p
McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace." No, not a disgrace. Indeed, that's what family and community is all about - and that's why the Social Security contract cements the bond between young and old. The disgrace is a wealthy freeloader like McCain who obviously doesn’t need it with his snout in the trough. McCain's wife Cindy has a net worth of approximately $100 million.
My Grandma, 87, gets about 1/5 of what McCain does – and that IS her income. Social Security Insurance works well in doing what it was designed to do – providing insurance in case ya mess up your own retirement plans… or lack thereof. Government is NOT in charge of your retirement. Government keeps my Grandma from eating cat food.
Republicans are always complaining about too much government, welfare queens, government hand-outs, and praising self-sufficiency, rugged individualism, ‘pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,’ but they need to walk the talk. Weasels like McCain have been living off big government all their lives and have never held jobs in private industry. Yet, they're the first to condemn any sort of program which is designed to assist the lower wage workers – low-interest college loans, increases in the minimum wage, health insurance, or greater regulations of some corporate behavior – while benefiting themselves
The point is not that McCain isn't entitled to the Social Security money. The point is that he hypocritically derides Social Security as a "disgrace" but fails to set an example to other multi-millionaires that the system would be benefited greatly if those not needing the money would refuse it. If every multi-millionaire stopped taking the money they don't actually need and gave it to the poor or those without health insurance, think what good that would do!
B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.
… from another blog: “When McCain began receiving Social Security retirement benefits at age 65, 4 of his children were also eligible for benefits. Children under age 18 are eligible for benefits on a retired beneficiary's record. Four of his children were 17,15,13 and 10 when he began resceiving Social Security benefits. One child, Bridget, is still under 18 and presumably still receiving benefits (half her dad's benefit rate or $965/month in 2007). With the 2.3% cost of living increase in January, 2008, McCain's current benefit probably exceeds $1974/month. His 2007 high earnings probably increased his benefits to an even higher benefit rate in his computation. His daughter gets 1/2 or $987 plus a month. His wife is also eligible for spouse's benefits for having an underage daughter in her care. His wife probably earns too much to collect that benefit though. However, if all her income is from investments and she has no wages or self employment earnings, she could draw another $987/month.
“Isn't it wonderful that Senator McCain is criticizing a program that his family benefits from to the tune of $36,000 to $48,000 this year? This is after having collected over $200,000 in family benefits in the previous 6 years.
“The pay as you go system which he criticizes has always been the basis of Social Security. Current wage earners pay for current beneficiaries. This system has succeeded in virtually eliminating poverty for senior citizens in the United States. This is the system that has helped enrich McCain and his family. This is the system that has allowed the McCain family to collect far more in benefits than he paid in taxes.
“It doesn't stop there. In his first marriage, Senator McCain's wife became disabled and, assuming she had worked sufficiently under Social Security, drew Social Security disability benefits. Since the McCain's had 3 young children, they would have been eligible for benefits as children under age 18 of a disabled beneficiary. In fact, at the time of her disability, children were eligible for benefits up to age 22 if they were full time students. So McCain family #1 may very well have had an opportunity to have Social Security defray a large portion of his children's college expenses. SSA benefits also lessened the burden on Mr. McCain's obligations to support his children from his 1st marriage after his divorce.
“The level of benefits that the McCains have received from Social Security is astounding. And he wants to dismantle the program that provided his family such substantial benefits?”
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Post #169
Subject: John W. McCain knows how to win wars.
Oh, really?
I’ve heard John W. McCain say over and over “I know how to win wars, I know how to win wars.” – as tho repetition makes it so. Can he cite an example of a war that he’s won either as a soldier or as an architect?
I’m sure that he’ll say, as a lowly soldier, it was not his responsibility to win Vietnam – true. I’m also sure that he’ll say, as an architect, it was George W. Bush who screwed up Iraq – true, too. But doesn’t that – being an architect for the incompetent Bush – raise questions about judgment?
Still, the question remains, can he cite an example of a war that he’s won either as a soldier or as an architect? It seems that McCain really only knows how to LOSE wars. :p
The good thing about blogging is that, uh, politically incorrect questions can be raised without worry about what some bobblehead on Faux News will say. Ya know, the Main Stream Media is just too lax when it comes to obvious questions.
For example, McCain keeps citing the “new strategy “ that’s working in Iraq and will work in Afghanistan. Well, what “new strategy” – specifically? What is it we are now doing in Iraq, and why will that strategy work in Afghanistan?
I thought that the historical lesson of Vietnam was that we should not have been there in the first place – that will undoubtedly be the historical lesson of Iraq, too. I thought the secondary lesson of Vietnam was ‘commit the country BEFORE committing the troops’ – that will undoubtedly be the secondary lesson of Iraq, too. How does McCain plan to commit the country at this late date? If he can’t – say, the people’s representatives in Congress cut off his money, what will he do?
Subject: John W. McCain knows how to win wars.
Oh, really?
I’ve heard John W. McCain say over and over “I know how to win wars, I know how to win wars.” – as tho repetition makes it so. Can he cite an example of a war that he’s won either as a soldier or as an architect?
I’m sure that he’ll say, as a lowly soldier, it was not his responsibility to win Vietnam – true. I’m also sure that he’ll say, as an architect, it was George W. Bush who screwed up Iraq – true, too. But doesn’t that – being an architect for the incompetent Bush – raise questions about judgment?
Still, the question remains, can he cite an example of a war that he’s won either as a soldier or as an architect? It seems that McCain really only knows how to LOSE wars. :p
The good thing about blogging is that, uh, politically incorrect questions can be raised without worry about what some bobblehead on Faux News will say. Ya know, the Main Stream Media is just too lax when it comes to obvious questions.
For example, McCain keeps citing the “new strategy “ that’s working in Iraq and will work in Afghanistan. Well, what “new strategy” – specifically? What is it we are now doing in Iraq, and why will that strategy work in Afghanistan?
I thought that the historical lesson of Vietnam was that we should not have been there in the first place – that will undoubtedly be the historical lesson of Iraq, too. I thought the secondary lesson of Vietnam was ‘commit the country BEFORE committing the troops’ – that will undoubtedly be the secondary lesson of Iraq, too. How does McCain plan to commit the country at this late date? If he can’t – say, the people’s representatives in Congress cut off his money, what will he do?
Friday, August 01, 2008
Post #168
Subject: Is Anybody Listening?
… from the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center that does research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies.
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
News Release
Tuesday
July 29, 2008
U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida
Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.
Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.
"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."
[Well, folks, ‘a new way forward’ from the minds of the RAND, a group of usually right-wing Nuts! :p This is not Daddy’s ol’ friends telling George W. Bush that he is wrong – this is the best and the brightest saying what Bush – and John W. McCain or Barak Obama – need to do in the future to fight al-Qaeda. After all, isn’t al-Qaeda our #1 enemy?]
The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.
The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.
Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.
Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida's goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.
The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force -- though not necessarily the U.S. military -- when insurgencies are involved.
The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.
"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
[This is your taxdollars at work, peeps. I wonder if that report is being shuffled around the halls of official Washington -- and being read by the two campaigns.]
Among the other findings, the study notes:
Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.
No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.
Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.
There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.
Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.
Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.
"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.
[The reason that John W. McCain is having a hard time explaining a positive vision for the future is that he sees no positive future. Wars in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq with Syria on notice; al-Qaeda strengthening; oil wells off the coast; a Constitutional crisis as Congress tries to cut off money for McCain’s war machine – the future according to McCain. Ya know, I bet he likes it!]
The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida," can be found at http://www.rand.org/ .
Subject: Is Anybody Listening?
… from the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center that does research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies.
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
News Release
Tuesday
July 29, 2008
U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida
Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.
Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.
"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."
[Well, folks, ‘a new way forward’ from the minds of the RAND, a group of usually right-wing Nuts! :p This is not Daddy’s ol’ friends telling George W. Bush that he is wrong – this is the best and the brightest saying what Bush – and John W. McCain or Barak Obama – need to do in the future to fight al-Qaeda. After all, isn’t al-Qaeda our #1 enemy?]
The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.
The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.
Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.
Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida's goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.
The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force -- though not necessarily the U.S. military -- when insurgencies are involved.
The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.
"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
[This is your taxdollars at work, peeps. I wonder if that report is being shuffled around the halls of official Washington -- and being read by the two campaigns.]
Among the other findings, the study notes:
Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.
No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.
Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.
There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.
Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.
Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.
"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.
[The reason that John W. McCain is having a hard time explaining a positive vision for the future is that he sees no positive future. Wars in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq with Syria on notice; al-Qaeda strengthening; oil wells off the coast; a Constitutional crisis as Congress tries to cut off money for McCain’s war machine – the future according to McCain. Ya know, I bet he likes it!]
The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida," can be found at http://www.rand.org/ .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)